Do you think Christ's divinity is a Johannine invention?
No. Christ as a quasi-divine being was already clear in Paul’s writings. Paul several times refers to God sending his Son with the implication that Jesus was pre-existing. Philippians 2 makes it plain that Jesus came from heaven and in some fashion was equal to God. Colossians 1 has Jesus as the means whereby everything was created. The language and content here are very close to the Son of God entity described by Philo of Alexandria, who also called this entity the Son of God.
Another name Philo used for this entity was the Logos. John 1 applies this word to a pre-existing quasi-divine Christ. John also has Christ be the means by which everything was created.
The idea of a divine Jesus has its roots in Philo.
I found an essay here on
the Reception of John in the Church (of the 2nd century). That essay argues convincingly that Irenaeus was probably not alone in his embrace of John — were that not the case, he would have been refuted for his reliance on John by those who saw John as a 'gnostic Gospel'. The silence suggests John sat within contemporary orthodoxy,
There was not yet a solid orthodoxy in the time of Irenaeus. Even after Irenaeus, Origen was considered orthodox – until he was not. A century after his death, Origen was labeled a heretic. We can speak reasonably of a proto-orthodoxy in contrast to such obvious early rejects as the various forms of Gnosticism but not of a well-formed orthodoxy.
When Irenaeus made his famous ‘four gospels’ proclamations, it seems to carry the implication that these four were the traditionally accepted ones as opposed to newer gospels that were coming out of the proverbial woodwork. That is, John had definitely been considered authentic scripture by some substantial portion of the proto-orthodox community prior to this.
In the linked paper, the earliest reference to the author of the Gospel of John as being named John and a disciple of Jesus is from the Gnostic Ptolemaeus. It does not seem possible to date this reference and it is believed that Ptolemaeus was still alive around 180 AD. Just how long after the writing of John this reference was made is therefore not known. Also, while definitely suggestive, Ptolemaeus does not say ‘John the son of Zebedee’. There is the possibility that this is some other John who was a disciple, not one of the Twelve Apostles.
One reason why there was hesitation in some quarters about accepting John as authentic scripture is exactly because of Ptolemaeus. He connected the idea of the Logos (Christ) being the agent of creation with the Gnostic demiurge concept inherited from Platonism. This should be no surprise since Philo, from whom the Logos idea derived, sought to reconcile Jewish scriptures with, yep, Platonism.
Was there a belief in the 2nd century that the document called the Gospel of John was authored by John son of Zebedee? Certainly. Was this actually the case? Another question.
Hmmm. That does not explain a characteristic Semitic phraseology that is occluded in the Greek?
Do you have examples of the characteristic Semitic phraseology you refer to? To be fair, I will first back up my claim that Matthew uses the Septuagint wording when it serves better than the Hebrew wording. Below are examples of Matthew quoting from scriptures compared to the Greek Septuagint wording and the Hebrew Tanach wording.
***
The virgin motif, part of Matthew’s method for making Jesus the literal Son of God
Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the
virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”
Esaias 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a
virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.
Yeshayahu 7:14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the
young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
***
Here a more direct phrasing than the Hebrew is used, which includes phrases not found on the Hebrew
Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”
Esaias 40:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.
Yeshayahu 40:3 A voice calls, "In the desert, clear the way of the Lord, straighten out in the wilderness, a highway for our God."
***
An example of Matthew’s recurring theme of charity versus Pharisaic legalism. The Lord want mercy not goodness. Since the Pharisees are very good at following the letter of the Law, ‘goodness’ could be misinterpreted but the Septuagint ‘mercy’ is clear.
Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 12:7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless
Osee 6:7 For I will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than whole-burnt-offerings.
Hoshea 6:6 For I desire goodness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
***
Gentiles is clearer in meaning than the Hebrew euphemism of ‘islands’
Matthew 12:21 “and in his name the
Gentiles will hope.”
Esaias 42:4 and in his name shall the
Gentiles trust.
Yeshayahu 42:4 and for his instruction,
islands shall long.
***
The ‘heart grown fat” euphemism is replaced with the more understandable Septuagint ‘heart grown thick’.
Note that different translations of Matthew and the Septuagint offer various words in place of thick, but both Matthew and the Septuagint use ἐπαχύνθη.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart has grown thick,
Esaias 6:10 For the heart of this people has become thick
Yeshayahu 6:10 This people's heart is becoming fat
***
The passage is about Jesus arguing with the Pharisees about a ritual not found in the Torah that they insist on and how in fact they violate the Torah with their traditions. The Septuagint version is far more appropriate to that than the Hebrew.
Matthew 15:9 “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
Esaias 29:13 in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
Yeshayahu 29:13 their fear of Me has become a command of people, which has been taught.
***
Mt 21:16 uses the Septuagint ‘praise’ (out of the mouths of babes) instead of the Hebrew ‘strength’.
Just before this Matthew tells us about ‘the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!”’ (Mt 21:15)
Matthew 21:6 “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared
praise’?”
Psalm 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected
praise,
Tehillim 8:3 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have established
strength
***
In the above scriptural quotes, the meaning and applicability of each quote is plainly related to the use of the Greek Septuagint wording. It is clear that Matthew was writing in Greek with a Greek reading audience in mind.
But, to be fair, nor does 'good Greek' argue for a Greek original.
In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, it does. What is the other evidence?
I don't think so? Saul of Tarsus was a tent-maker?
According to Acts, Paul came from Tarsus and would therefore have been brought up speaking Greek.
Tarsus was famous for its University.
It is under the rule of Augustus that our knowledge of Tarsus first becomes fairly full and precise, Strabo, writing about 19 AD, tells us (xiv.673 ff) of the enthusiasm of its inhabitants for learning, and especially for philosophy. In this respect, he says, Tarsus surpasses Athens and Alexandria and every other university town. It was characterized by the fact that the student body was composed almost entirely of natives, who, after finishing their course, usually went abroad to complete their education and in most cases did not return home, whereas in most universities the students were to a large extent foreigners, and the natives showed no great love of learning.
https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/T/tarsus.html
It is entirely reasonable to think that Paul could have gone to the university, and as part of the general enthusiasm for philosophy, studied the writings of Philo (in Greek).
As was common with other university students, he likely would then have furthered his education abroad. Acts tells us that Paul studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem where he would have learned much about the scriptures that he often quoted.
In his letters, Paul several times refers to working with his hands to support himself, not wishing to be supported by the communities he visited as others did. Acts identifies his trade as tentmaker. The word σκηνοποιοὶ refers to makers of small portable tents of the type used by travelers. This sounds like ready employment in any of the crossroads cities that Paul visited.
Paul had a trade which facilitated his ability to move around without depending on charity. But more to the point, it is probable that he had a good education and in particular that he would naturally know Greek and be aware of the philosopher Philo from university.
By contrast, John lived in Galilee with none of the opportunities that Paul had and not even being proficient in Greek to begin with. That would appear to be a major difference between Paul and John the son of Zebedee.
